3 ms·
That's not how legal responsibility is assigned in nearly all jurisdictions. It doesn't matter who wrote some speech. It matters who _hosted_ the speech. I'm no
by adastra22 2y ago
That's not how legal responsibility is assigned in nearly all jurisdictions. It doesn't matter who wrote some speech. It matters who _hosted_ the speech. I'm not a solicitor in India so I can't say for certain how things are handled here, but this is not surprising for any commonwealth jurisdiction.
- aspenmayer 2y agoIt matters who hosted the speech, but also what jurisdiction the host is in. India cannot hope to enforce this outside India. I suspect WMF complied in protest in order to draw attention to the censorious nature of the rulings so far. Seems like it's working well for them. Wikipedia explicitly considers it censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- rchard2scout 2y agoAccording to Jimbo Wales, they complied in order to not "lose the possibility to appeal". Apparently, "the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step." WMF lawyers are doing "everything [they] can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Jimbo_Wales-20241021091300-Comment_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c...
- aspenmayer 2y agoThanks for that citation, that really helps. Archived just in case! https://archive.is/qjppc https://archive.is/qjppc